stories about: "sprint"

As People Realize That There's Tons Of Mobile Phone Tracking Data Out There, Fingers Start Pointing

from the don't-blame-us,-blame-them dept

Fri, Apr 29th 2011 2:25pm — Mike Masnick

While there's been plenty of concern in the past couple weeks about Apple's iPhone/iPad location data, followed by Google's Android location data, plenty of people pointed out from the beginning that what both companies have done completely pales in comparison to the sort of data that mobile phone operators regularly collect on you. Even as lawsuits have been filed against both Apple and Google, few of the people who are really upset about those two companies seem to recognize that what the operators have is much, much more complete. The mobile operators, apparently fearing that people may start to realize this, have become a bit proactive and are trying to convince everyone that the real problems are elsewhere -- specifically with apps on phones, not with the service providers. You see, don't worry about all the data we collect. Just look at what those apps are doing:

AT&T noted it �plays no role� in what kind of information smartphone apps collect, while T-Mobile pointed out the ways in which that data can be used.

Sprint lamented �consumers no longer can look to their trusted carrier with whom they have a trusted relationship to answer all of their questions,� particularly on privacy.

And Verizon Wireless called out smartphone app makers directly on the issue, stressing �location-based applications and services (whether provided by us or third parties such as Google) should give customers clear and transparent notice� and control.

This was in response to questions from Congressional Reps. Ed Markey and Joe Barton, leading all of the operators to also admit that they collect such data as well, but really, apps. Apps are a bigger issue. Just focus on the apps. Really. Apps.

Filed Under: privacy, tracking
Companies: apple, at&t, google, sprint, t-mobile, verizon

19 Comments

AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile Hit With Dumbest Antitrust Lawsuit Ever

Too Much Free Time

from the please dept

Fri, Apr 1st 2011 3:26pm — Mike Masnick

We just wrote about how Max Davis, who's trying to create a silly and totally pointless compulsory licensing system for MMS content was more or less laughed out of court in the lawsuit he filed against the mobile operators, claiming that they were running illegal P2P file sharing programs in the form of their MMS capabilities. It apparently took him all of a few days to come up with a new, perhaps even more ridiculous strategy: he's suing AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile and TracFone for supposed antitrust violations over the same basic issues. Once again, it seems clear that this is an incredibly weak (and almost certainly unproductive) attempt at getting these companies to agree to his pointless licensing scheme.

So how are these mobile operators guilty of antitrust violations? According to Davis:

Defendants purposely conspired via collusion to install themselves as the new primary gate keepers and sole beneficiaries of multimedia content sharing through their new MMS technologies.

Except, of course, that's ridiculous. These companies did agree to set up MMS systems, but that's because they're the mobile operators who run the mobile networks. That's not collusion. And it's not antitrust. The filing gets more ridiculous as it goes on. He claims that these operators do not qualify as DMCA service providers, contrary to the pretty clear language of the law and plenty of case law. The whole thing seems frivolous, and it seems likely that this lawsuit will reach a similar conclusion to the previous one.

Filed Under: antitrust, mms
Companies: at&t, sprint, t-mobile, tracfone, verizon

Totally Pointless Lawsuit Accusing Mobile Carriers Of Being P2P File Sharers Dismissed; Plaintiffs Say They're Happy

from the um,-guys,-you-lost-big-time dept

Fri, Mar 25th 2011 4:01am — Mike Masnick

Last summer, we wrote about an incredibly poorly thought out lawsuit, by a company named Luvdarts, developers of MMS content, suing the mobile operators, because MMS can be forwarded from a recipient to another person. The company claimed that the big mobile operators were no different than file sharing networks, like Limewire or Gnutella, because each forwarding of content was infringement. As we pointed out at the time, this made no sense. It was a silly argument that was really being put forth by a guy named Max Davis, who has an equally silly plan to add compulsory licensing to MMS content, and this lawsuit was an incredibly weak attempt to push the mobile operators into negotiating. Instead, as we predicted, it's been dismissed by the courts for failure to state a claim. The dismissal was with prejudice, meaning that the court doesn't want to see them again on this. The press release linked above is kind of amusing, because it has the folks behind the lawsuit claiming that they're happy about this result and planning to appeal. Guys, you just got laughed out of court, because this lawsuit makes no sense. Appealing isn't going to fix that.

Filed Under: file sharing, mms, royalties
Companies: at&t, luvdarts, sprint, t-mobile, verizon

14 Comments

Judge Rejects Gov't Request For Cell Tower Data, Noting Recent 4th Amendment Rulings

Privacy

from the probable-cause dept

Tue, Aug 31st 2010 7:37pm — Mike Masnick

We recently wrote about a somewhat surprising ruling by the appeals court in the DC circuit saying that long-term use of a GPS to track someone without a warrant violated the 4th Amendment. What was surprising about this is that, while state courts had ruled similarly, the federal courts had almost universally ruled that such tracking was legal. While that case will almost certainly be appealed and seems to have a decent likelihood of ending up before the Supreme Court, it's apparently already impacting some rulings elsewhere. Chris Soghoian notes that a federal magistrate judge recently rejected the governments' request for historical cell site data from Sprint, because the government failed to show probable cause (as required under the 4th Amendment):

What's notable is that the judge admits to having approved similar requests in the past, but refuses to do so this time, as a result of that recent ruling, and noting that the reasoning highlighted that technology is changing the way many view things concerning privacy and surveillance:

The decision in Maynard is just one of several rulings in recent years reflecting a growing recognition, at least in some courts, that technology has progressed to the point where a person who wishes to partake in the social, cultural, and political affairs of our society has no realistic choice but to expose to others, if not to the public as a whole, a broad range of conduct and communications that would previously have been deemed unquestionably private....

As a result of such decisions, I believe that magistrate judges presented with ex parte requests for authority to deploy various forms of warrantless location-tracking must carefully re- examine the constitutionality of such investigative techniques, and that it is no longer enough to dismiss the need for such analysis by relying on cases such as Knotts or, as discussed below, Smith v. Maryland.... For the reasons discussed below, I now conclude that the Fourth Amendment prohibits as an unreasonable search and seizure the order the government now seeks in the absence of a showing of "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation[.]"

Nice to see some judges recognizing this, though it remains to be seen how many others will agree... and how the Supreme Court reacts to all of this.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, cell tower data, privacy, probable cause
Companies: sprint

4 Comments

Is MMS Just Like Limewire? New Lawsuit Against AT&T, Verizon, Sprint & T-Mobile Says So...

from the say-what-now dept

Fri, Jul 23rd 2010 8:58am — Mike Masnick

Regular Techdirt commenter Max Davis (who I believe may be involved in this lawsuit) passed along the news that all the big US mobile operators have been sued -- including AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint and T-Mobile -- under the claim that their MMS platforms are really illegal file sharing networks, and that these operators are no different than Limewire or Gnuttella. Yes, seriously -- the email Max sent repeatedly refers to MMS and Limewire as if they were the same. Here's the complaint:

Honestly, the whole lawsuit seems ridiculous. Here's the crux of it:

Defendants, and each of them, enabled the transfer/transmission and publication of this copyright protected content via mobile devices by building and implementing a peer to peer file sharing network with the dedicated purpose of enabling end users to share multimedia files via this MMS network. Defendants, and each of them, profited from these activities by charging the transmitter and receivers of this content a fee or flat rate for the transfer/transmission that resulted in the publication of said content. Despite charging the transmitter and receiver a fee for the delivery of this copyrighted content, Defendants, and each of them, failed to compensate the holder of the copyrights for this content that was necessary in generating the MMS data revenue. Furthermore, Defendants, and each of them failed or refused to provide a system where an adequate accounting of the transfer/transmission and publication of this copyrighted content could be made.

Basically, this company, Luvdarts, made MMS content, and it got distributed via MMS. Since recipients of MMS can forward the MMS data they receive, such content got forwarded around. Since the mobile operators receive revenue for MMS data, Luvdarts is effectively claiming that they are profiting off the infringement of Luvdarts content. This makes no sense. It's like saying that any email provider is infringing on the copyrights of email writers by letting recipients forward emails. You know those chain emails that get passed around? Imagine if one of the authors of those then sued all the big email providers. It would get laughed out of court. Hopefully, this lawsuit gets laughed out of court too.

The one oddity is that the lawsuit claims that the mobile operators do not qualify for DMCA safe harbor protections, because they're "not service providers" as defined in the DMCA. Specifically:

The transmission of this MMS data is not covered by the exemption for Internet Service Providers as set forth in 17 U.S.C. §512 because the wireless carriers are not Internet Service Providers as defined by §512 while providing a dedicated MMS network for multimedia file sharing.

Really? If you haven't read your §512 lately, why not go take a look and explain how a mobile operator offering MMS is not covered. It certainly seems covered by the definition:

Definitions.--
(1) Service provider--
(A) As used in subsection (a), the term "service provider" means an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.
(B) As used in this section, other than subsection (a), the term "service provider" means a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor, and includes an entity described in subparagraph (A).

Help me out. Where are mobile operators offering MMS features excluded? Looks like yet another frivolous lawsuit. But, of course, Luvdarts is demanding the statutory maximum of $150,000 per infringement, and claims "9,999 to 100,000 counts of infringement" (broad enough range there?). Good luck, Max.

Filed Under: copyright, file sharing, mms
Companies: at&t, luvdarts, sprint, t-mobile, verizon wireless

49 Comments

Sprint Realizing That Data Caps Turn Customers Off

Broadband

from the about-time dept

Thu, Jul 15th 2010 10:05pm — Mike Masnick

Back when Sprint joined other mobile carriers in issuing a 5 GB limit on its EVDO connection, I was among those who noted that it was disappointing that the company sold me an "unlimited" service, and then changed the terms on me unilaterally. It also changed the way I used my EVDO card, making it significantly less useful and valuable for me. I don't want to be thinking about how much data I'm using (and it was especially difficult without a detailed system of tracking how much data you were using). I remember once, while traveling, I accidentally left the EVDO connection running over night, and got worried that Sprint might cut me off. It's just not worth it, and I've actually been thinking about dumping Sprint once my contract is up.

Apparently, I wasn't alone in thinking this and Sprint has noticed. With its new WiMax network, it has stayed away from talking about any caps, and has now admitted that the reaction to the EVDO caps is part of the reason why. They're afraid that, just as they're trying to convince people to use the WiMax network, they'll get scared off by caps. The problem, of course, is that these mobile broadband providers are fighting against themselves on these things. They want to convince the world that these networks are useful -- and to do that, you have to show all the cool things that you can do with them. But, if they haven't really invested enough in the networks, they can actually run into some congestion problems, and so they can't encourage you to use them too much. Hopefully, the investment into WiMax (or, potentially moving on to LTE) will mean that such congestion problems are mostly a thing of the past, and that it's not worth implementing caps.

That said, Sprint's admission of how people responded to the EVDO caps should be a clear warning to ISPs that keep trying to implement broadband caps or metered broadband. Doing so imposes additional costs that you might not have considered, such as the mental transaction costs your users face in determining if it's even worth using your network. Of course, ISPs should know this already. We already have a detailed case study in that AOL only really took off after it switched from hourly billing to an unlimited flat-rate. Why some ISPs want to go back to make their product less valuable is beyond me.

Filed Under: broadband, broadband caps, lte, wimax, wireless broadband
Companies: sprint

44 Comments

Woman Sues Sprint Over Driving While Yakking Death

Legal Issues

from the good-luck-there dept

Tue, Dec 8th 2009 2:02pm — Mike Masnick

More than five years ago, we wrote about a ridiculous lawsuit that involved a lawsuit against Cingular (now a part of AT&T) seeking to pin liability on Cingular for an accident caused by a driver who was talking on his phone. That lawsuit was tossed out as ridiculous (and again on appeal) with the court noting that the mobile phone operator was not at all responsible for what a driver did. Apparently, some folks are unaware of this case. Broadband Reports alerts us to the news that Sprint is being sued in a similar lawsuit. In this case, a woman was killed by a driver on the phone, and the woman's daughter is claiming that Sprint should have warned people of the risks of driving while talking on the phone. Nice try, but chances are, this lawsuit is going to get tossed just as fast as previous ones.

Filed Under: car crash, driving while yakking, liability
Companies: sprint

59 Comments

Sprint Revealed GPS Data To Authorities 8 Million Times In The Last Year [Updated]

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the yowzers dept

Tue, Dec 1st 2009 1:39pm — Mike Masnick

This seems too insane to be true, but the EFF points us to a report, based on a Freedom of Information Act request, that claims Sprint provided law enforcement with GPS location data a staggering 8 million times in the last year. Sprint apparently set up some sort of portal that made such requests easier, and it sounds like law enforcement took advantage of that in a major way. The report also notes that this information should have been disclosed to Congress, under a 1999 law, but the Justice Department has ignored the law for the past five years. The rest of the report also looks at some other concerning factors, such as the fact that the government seems to regularly get all sorts of info from service providers, with little oversight. On top of that, it explains why so many service providers agree to it: they charge the government for such info, and it's quite lucrative. As such, they actually have the incentive to encourage the government to ask for more information and to deliver it to them as quickly and efficiently as possible. However, you have to wonder how so many requests are being made with such little oversight -- and how often this means the process is abused to spy on individuals with no legal basis. Update: Sprint is now trying to explain this by saying that the numbers represent number of "pings" and that can include thousands of pings per a single investigation. In a single investigation, once law enforcement has a court order, it can check someone's location every 3 minutes for up to 60 days -- and that's what made the number so inflated.

Filed Under: accountability, gps data, oversight, wiretaps
Companies: sprint

41 Comments

Time For Palm To Drop WebOS And Embrace Android

Predictions

from the the-time-has-come dept

Wed, Nov 4th 2009 7:22am — Mike Masnick

It appears that Wall Street is giving up on Palm after sales of the Pre have been massively disappointing, and Sprint (their only US partner) appears to be focusing more and more on HTC Android-powered phones these days. At the same time, developers are recognizing that if they're creating mobile apps, they need to decide which platforms to work on, and the markets for the iPhone and Android smartphones look a lot more exciting.

This is, in large part, due to poor planning on the part of Palm and Sprint. First, Palm was way too slow in really opening up its developer program. By the time it finally got around to it, more and more Android phones were hitting the market, with much more of a marketing push. Developers, given the choice, will go for the platform that actually has users. That's why I still say it was a huge mistake for Palm and Sprint not to have figured out a way to give away the Palm Pre for free. The thing that Pre needed more than anything else was market share. With market share it could attract developers and a loyal following. Without that, Palm is dead and everyone knows it. Having failed at that, and now thrown away its head start over the rush of Android-powered devices hitting the market, Palm is quickly looking like an afterthought, just months after the Pre was released.

I actually stopped by a Sprint store earlier this week, because I was interested in seeing its recent Android-powered phones in person. I played around with them, and then picked up the Palm Pre as well -- and I have to admit that the hardware on the Pre is really nice. It's just a much nicer overall package than the HTC Hero (an Android-powered phone) -- more compact, had a more solid feel, and the slide out keyboard is actually quite nice (if a bit small). But, after seeing all the developer support moving towards Android, I have no interest in betting on a dying OS. And that's when I wondered why Palm didn't just release an Android-powered Pre as well. I recognize that it's got a lot invested in webOS, but it's a sunk cost and a losing strategy.

A few years back, after years supporting its own Palm operating system, the company started offering Treo's that supported Windows Mobile. It's time to do that again, but for Android, letting the company actually make use of a much larger, committed developer community, rather than trying to keep the whole thing in-house.

Filed Under: android, palm pre
Companies: google, palm, sprint

57 Comments

Sprint Offers Palm Pre For $100 For A Month, Maybe Two... Then, Oops, Not At All

Failures

from the great-moments-in-marketing dept

Tue, Sep 8th 2009 5:02pm — Mike Masnick

I recently explained why I thought Sprint made a rather large strategic marketing error in pricing the Palm Pre at the equivalent price of an iPhone: $199 (after annoying mail-in rebate that turns many buyers off). In fact, I argued why it would make a lot more sense to further subsidize the phone all the way to free, and make up the money on the backend with more subscriptions. Given how heavily invested Sprint was in the Pre, and how pathetic the sales have been to date, it really makes very little sense to keep the price so high. So, at the very least, I thought it was a good first step this morning when it was "announced" that Sprint was offering the Pre at $99. Of course, there were some silly things about this promotion as well. First, it only applied to new customers, transferring numbers over from other carriers. What better way to mock your loyal customers than to offer others a better deal? Second, they didn't just discount the phone, but gave you a "credit" that was split over the first three bills (better than a mail-in rebate, but still annoying). However, what was even stranger was that Sprint didn't even seem to understand the promotion itself. John Paczkowski noted that in some places on Sprint's website it said the promotion ran until October 10th. In others it said October 31st.

Apparently, the confusion at Sprint headquarters went well beyond that, because as the company attempted to sort out the confusion, it announced that it was doing away with the special promotion entirely. And yet, even after announcing it, the offer page remained on Sprint's site. It's not at all clear what happened here, other than Sprint seems somewhat clueless in how to do basic promotions, pricing and marketing. Obviously, the company intended to offer the phone for $99 -- it's on the company's own site. And yet, now it's suddenly claiming that it was a mistake? I can already see the business school case study on how not to launch an innovative smart phone.

Filed Under: marketing, palm pre, positioning, pricing
Companies: palm, sprint

20 Comments

<< Newer Stories

Older Stories >>

Follow Techdirt

Essential Reading

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Read the latest posts:

read all »

Techdirt Deals

Report this ad | Hide Techdirt ads

Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Older Stuff

Friday
13:40	Effort Underway To Have Chile Add Access To Knowledge, Digital Sovereignty, And Privacy To Chilean Constitution (7)
12:13	GilvaSunner YouTube Channel Shuts Down Due To Copyright Strikes From Nintendo; Pokemon Releases Music (15)
10:50	Tenth Circuit Tells College Administrator That Ordering A Student To Stop Talking About An Instructor Clearly Violates The First Amendment (27)
10:45	Daily Deal: The Complete Award-Winning Luminar AI Bundle (0)
09:40	How The EARN IT Act Is Significantly More Dangerous Than FOSTA (25)
06:07	Small Alabama Town's Overzealous Traffic Cops Also Monitored Internet Traffic To Threaten Critics Of The Corrupt PD (43)
Thursday
20:18	Nintendo Hates You: More DMCA Takedowns Of YouTube Videos Of Game Music Despite No Legit Alternative (16)
15:39	Virginia Police Used Fake Forensic Documents To Secure Confessions From Criminal Suspects (25)
13:31	How Disney Got That 'Theme Park Exemption' In Ron DeSantis' Unconstitutional Social Media Bill (15)
12:01	Senator Wyden: EARN IT Will Make Children Less Safe (16)
10:53	Explainer: The Whole Spotify / Joe Rogan Thing Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Section 230 (56)
10:48	Daily Deal: GoSafe S780 Dash Cam with Sony Image Sensor (2)
09:25	Can You Solve The Miserable Being Miserable Online By Regulating Tech? (12)
05:23	New FCC Broadband 'Nutrition Label' Will More Clearly Inform You You're Being Ripped Off (16)
Wednesday
20:02	Moar Consolidation: Sony Acquires Bungie, But Appears To Be More Hands Off Than Microsoft (18)
15:50	Spying Begins At Home: Israel's Government Used NSO Group Malware To Surveill Its Own Citizens (8)
13:43	Hollywood, Media, And Telecom Giants Are Clearly Terrified Gigi Sohn Will Do Her Job At The FCC (12)
12:10	Can We At Least Make Sure Antitrust Isn't Deliberately Designed To Make Everyone Worse Off? (20)
10:48	Texas Town To Start Issuing Traffic Tickets By Text Message (59)
10:43	Daily Deal: The 2022 FullStack Web Developer Bundle (0)
09:34	With Stephen Breyer's Retirement, The Supreme Court Has Lost A Justice Who Was Wary Of Overly Burdensome Copyright (13)
05:39	Congress Introduces New Agricultural 'Right to Repair' Bill With Massive Farmer Support (13)
Tuesday
20:57	YouTube Dusts Off Granular National Video Blocking To Assist YouTuber Feuding With Toei Animation (50)
17:55	That's A Wrap On The Public Domain Game Jam! Check Out All This Year's Great Entries (0)
15:33	Chicago Cops Love Them Some Facebook Sharing, According To Internal Facial Recognition Presentation (4)
13:30	Techdirt Podcast Episode 309: Remembering The SOPA Fight, With Rep. Zoe Lofgren (5)
12:15	Senators' 'Myths & Facts' About EARN IT Is Mostly Myths, Not Facts (16)
10:45	Senate's New EARN IT Bill Will Make Child Exploitation Problem Worse, Not Better, And Still Attacks Encryption (48)
10:40	Daily Deal: The Stellar Utility Software Bundle (1)
09:28	ID.me Finally Admits It Runs Selfies Against Preexisting Databases As IRS Reconsiders Its Partnership With The Company (15)

As People Realize That There's Tons Of Mobile Phone Tracking Data Out There, Fingers Start Pointing

from the don't-blame-us,-blame-them dept

AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile Hit With Dumbest Antitrust Lawsuit Ever

from the please dept

Totally Pointless Lawsuit Accusing Mobile Carriers Of Being P2P File Sharers Dismissed; Plaintiffs Say They're Happy

from the um,-guys,-you-lost-big-time dept

Judge Rejects Gov't Request For Cell Tower Data, Noting Recent 4th Amendment Rulings

from the probable-cause dept

Is MMS Just Like Limewire? New Lawsuit Against AT&T, Verizon, Sprint & T-Mobile Says So...

from the say-what-now dept

Sprint Realizing That Data Caps Turn Customers Off

from the about-time dept

Woman Sues Sprint Over Driving While Yakking Death

from the good-luck-there dept

Sprint Revealed GPS Data To Authorities 8 Million Times In The Last Year [Updated]

from the yowzers dept

Time For Palm To Drop WebOS And Embrace Android

from the the-time-has-come dept

Sprint Offers Palm Pre For $100 For A Month, Maybe Two... Then, Oops, Not At All

from the great-moments-in-marketing dept

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Friday

Thursday

Wednesday

Tuesday

More

Tools & Services

Company

Contact

More

from the don't-blame-us,-blame-them dept

from the please dept

from the um,-guys,-you-lost-big-time dept

from the probable-cause dept

from the say-what-now dept

from the about-time dept

from the good-luck-there dept

from the yowzers dept

from the the-time-has-come dept

from the great-moments-in-marketing dept

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Tools & Services

Company

Contact

More